|
SKELETONS posted:The pro-human argument is to reverse scarcity with technology and continue growth And adding more people will not fix or somehow mitigate any of those issues either. It would drastically shorten our time left to mitigate the effects of AGW while reducing resources and energy while introducing more political instability and BS of which there is already too much. SKELETONS posted:every other human getting wealthier is bad because it means taking our share of the pie.
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 11:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:58 |
|
|
SKELETONS posted:This sentiment is exactly what I mean - just warmed over Limits to Growth/Malthusian stuff. The pro-human argument is to reverse scarcity with technology and continue growth, rather than have this zero-sum future where every other human getting wealthier is bad because it means taking our share of the pie. Our main limit is the space and amount of resources we have available, which is currently limited to Earth and only Earth. There are talks of taking to space but the scary thing is we might be missing the window. The other thing is that we're wrecking Earth pretty fierce. For better or for worse we're at a major turning point in human history which has the potential to have us thriving and spreading beyond Earth to destroying ourselves and everything in between. A lot of it hinges on the decisions we make right now. The problem is that a lot of people think "ignore it and hope it goes away" is a good decision. Much of our economy, energy production, and industry is ultimately based on oil. There is only so much oil and it's getting harder and harder to get out. The theory is that we're going to run out in a matter of decades. Phosphorus is also a major component of modern farming methods and, guess what? We're running out of that too. The problem isn't necessarily people getting wealthier and our lives getting better but rather that a lot of people, especially in western society, are wasteful, often deliberately so. I worked in a restaurant for a long time and one thing I saw a lot of was people ordering a poo poo load of food, eating maybe a third of it, then just throwing the rest out. These were often people that drove horribly inefficient vehicles, lived in houses way bigger than they needed, and would brag about it. The biggest issue, I think, is that we have a society that encourages deliberately wasting resources just because you can.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Much of our economy, energy production, and industry is ultimately based on oil. There is only so much oil and it's getting harder and harder to get out. The theory is that we're going to run out in a matter of decades. Phosphorus is also a major component of modern farming methods and, guess what? We're running out of that too. Really, peak oil? We can do better than this. Please find a reputable source that backs this up (that is post-fracing). I get the finite resources argument but it is nowhere near as simple as "stop reproducing or else."
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 11:20
|
|
|
If you truly believe fracking is anything more than a short term 'fix' I don't know what to say. Recovery rates decrease in a non-linear fashion. After a few years even with the best tech the site is tapped out. The '100 yr' supply that you sometimes still see touted in the media from fracking is BS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 11:36
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:If you truly believe fracking is anything more than a short term 'fix' I don't know what to say. Can you post a version of that chart that is readable? Or link the source? Fracing does however displace coal rather nicely in the next 0-20 years. Luckily we can wait 20+ years to deal with global warming.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 11:41
|
|
|
clockworkjoe posted:I have a conservative relative who just emailed me this op-ed by
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
Source is paywalled. Slides are all I got from it. 20 yr is probably optimistic IMO. The amount of drilling they're doing is insane just to keep up current supply.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
People also forget that modern agriculture is the largest contributor to CC. If we are to do something about it, then we have to change the way we grow food.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:People also forget that modern agriculture is the largest contributor to CC. If we are to do something about it, then we have to change the way we grow food. What, in the distribution network sense or the fertilizers? Because at least for the latter there exists alternatives (if more expensive).
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
computer parts posted:What, in the distribution network sense or the fertilizers? Because at least for the latter there exists alternatives (if more expensive). Well, mostly by releasing GH gases like CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide and destroying land (think deforestation and desertification). And also in the distribution sense, and also things like refrigeration that will have a huge impact on the amount of GHG released into the atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
There's also entire chunks of the ocean that nothing can live in thanks to all the drat nitrates washing off of farms. Yeah we're getting gently caress tons of corn but we're wrecking fish as a food source. We're loving things up on a grand scale.Trabisnikof posted:Really, peak oil? We can do better than this. Please find a reputable source that backs this up (that is post-fracing). We're running out of oil. The only question is how much we have left. It might be 50 years, it might be 100. Whichever it is we're going to have to deal with that problem. The sooner we come up with renewable alternatives to oil the better off we'll be. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Sep 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
I like to drink to forget this thread exists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:There's also entire chunks of the ocean that nothing can live in thanks to all the drat nitrates washing off of farms. Yeah we're getting gently caress tons of corn but we're wrecking fish as a food source. We're loving things up on a grand scale. The oceans are not the only places that have dead zones. Most modern intensive farms are devoid of animal life.  this  vs this Plus the ever skyrocketing rates of obesity and other diseases thanks to our amazing world of packaged foods.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:There's also entire chunks of the ocean that nothing can live in thanks to all the drat nitrates washing off of farms. Yeah we're getting gently caress tons of corn but we're wrecking fish as a food source. We're loving things up on a grand scale. We are not running out of oil. To say so belies a misunderstanding of the difference between resource and reserve. We are "running out" of oil at this price point. Which is to say, we're tapping oil reserves in general order of cheapness, so yes expect the price of oil to rise in the medium term, but that's not the same as "running out." Please find a post fracing study that says we're running out of oil.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:We are not running out of oil. To say so belies a misunderstanding of the difference between resource and reserve. We are "running out" of oil at this price point. Which is to say, we're tapping oil reserves in general order of cheapness, so yes expect the price of oil to rise in the medium term, but that's not the same as "running out." You're never going to win an argument on a forum this pedantic (hi  ) saying that we're not "running out of oil" unless the Earth is creating oil faster than we extract it (some people believe this!). We've been running out of oil ever since the first gusher was found in western Pennsylvania in the 19th century. The question is how much oil is there still in the Earth and as you're alluding to it appears that there is still be a ton. Its just we've already drilled out all the cheap and easy spots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:We are not running out of oil. To say so belies a misunderstanding of the difference between resource and reserve. We are "running out" of oil at this price point. Which is to say, we're tapping oil reserves in general order of cheapness, so yes expect the price of oil to rise in the medium term, but that's not the same as "running out." "We're not running out of oil! There's 4 tons left at the center of the earth it's just more expensive to get to! Stop this alarmist nonsense!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:We are not running out of oil. To say so belies a misunderstanding of the difference between resource and reserve. We are "running out" of oil at this price point. Which is to say, we're tapping oil reserves in general order of cheapness, so yes expect the price of oil to rise in the medium term, but that's not the same as "running out." We're running out of oil that is economical versus other processes to do the same tasks that oil does. (But we're also physically running out of oil)
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
computer parts posted:We're running out of oil that is economical versus other processes to do the same tasks that oil does. At the same time drilling technology is advancing so more oil becomes available at a certain price.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
I was feeling good today Then I found this thread I feel bad now
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:At the same time drilling technology is advancing so more oil becomes available at a certain price. But that oil is itself not economical below a certain price. At best you will stall prices, they'll never go down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:At the same time drilling technology is advancing so more oil becomes available at a certain price. Then you run into the other problem, there being a finite amount of oil in the Earth. You can't handwave the problem away with technology.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Then you run into the other problem, there being a finite amount of oil in the Earth. You can't handwave the problem away with technology. Wipe down young Italian men and use that oil
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Then you run into the other problem, there being a finite amount of oil in the Earth. You can't handwave the problem away with technology. Correct, however we appear to have a lot of time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
At some point, oil recovery will take more energy than you can get from burning it, and that's when we "run out". There will still be oil, probably lots, but there will cease to be a point to digging it up and burning it. But we should stop burning it far before we get there, for other reasons than our loving wallets. Goons  about peak oil is why we're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Now there is. There won't be if the Earth heats up a few degrees C. It won't even take that much either. The phrase "global environmental catastrophe" gets used for a reason. The Earth isn't going to heat up a few degrees C anytime in the next century, but even if we assume it does, we're still going to grow more than enough food. Right now the world is making more food than ever before using less land than we did almost 20 years ago. Notice that the food graph is food supply PER PERSON, so food production is increasing faster than population growth. http://blog.nature.org/science/files/2014/06/GlobalLandAg.jpg http://blog.nature.org/science/files/2014/06/GlobalFoodSupply.jpg Much of those same strategies for maximizing yields aren't fully employed in the undeveloped world, which can and will lead to massive increases in food production. Malthusian disasters in the form of mass starvation have been predicted since, well, Malthus. Look up Paul Ehrlich from the 70s. "It's different this time" has never been true before, and by the looks of our food production, isn't going to be true short of an instant ice age.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
EightBit posted:At some point, oil recovery will take more energy than you can get from burning it, and that's when we "run out". Except we'll still extract it because we'll still need plastics and other petroleum products even if all of our power comes from magical cold fusion devices.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
tsa posted:And so is "no nuclear power" which is the overwhelming cry of environmentalists and why they are worse than useless on the issue of climate change. A tea partier could deny CC till they are blue in the face and they'd still be better on the issue if they were pro-nuclear than a environmentalist who wants to rip out all the nuke plants to be replaced by fairy tale magic power that's totally going to be invented any day now. And it's sad- these people mean well (usually) but they simply are not educated on the issue. They don't understand the scale of the problem, they don't understand the science of the problem, and they certainly don't understand the concept of risk management. One nit with this post, which bolsters the point you are making, is that China is the largest emitting nation rather than the United States. It is estimated that China emits ~double the amount of CO2 as the US. Trabisnikof posted:This is a good example of the problem of a lot of technological solutions. That timeline means that technology would only begin to have meaningful impact starting in 2050, when the technology comes online, since if the first production plant was to be completed in 2022 it is unlikely to have widespread follow-on adoption and construction in less than 25 years (this is assuming all positive predictions for the technology are correct and all negative ones are wrong). According to his presentation, their projections are a 2017 prototype, in 2023 commercial sale will be ready (that would be the year that it comes online), and by 2044 they will have built a quantity that can provide enough electricity to power the entire planet. Probably a bit optimistic, but a breakthrough on this technology isn't far-fetched. Arkane fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Sep 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Sorry to interrupt the current debate but someone posted this paper ( http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf ) on Facebook and while it does specifically say that temperatures are rising, it contradicts some other stuff I'd heard, so I wanted to know if it had been refuted in the last year. I can't seem to find many good articles about it as most of the links in google are deniers posting about how it shows all the models are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Except we'll still extract it because we'll still need plastics and other petroleum products even if all of our power comes from magical cold fusion devices. We can likely get enough for that from algae/bio-sourced stuff. It'll be a lot more involved than "grab oil, make product" but it'll be doable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
clockworkjoe posted:I have a conservative relative who just emailed me this op-ed by It's a very good article, a lot better than I thought it would be. It's a bit pithy in its discussion of some topics...for instance climate sensitivity, which is pretty much the fulcrum of the debate right now. Our estimates for climate sensitivity are dropping, which is a very good thing. I think the central thesis is that some scientists & politicians try to convey certainty/consensus towards catastrophe in the future when this is anything but certain. They take the consensus view that much of the warming in the 20th Century was due to humanity, and then stick the nonconsensus view that this will lead to [insert ridiculous prediction], and if you don't believe both well you're just an anti-science denier. You can see that in this thread time and time again. It's a perverting of the IPCC in some respects. There are very large ranges in projections which imply similarly large gaps in our knowledge. One need only look at the climate models being completely unable to model temperature for the past 15 years to get an illustration of our gaps in knowledge. I think one could reasonably argue that more action is necessary. I disagree with that, but it's not unreasonable. The unreasonable parts of this debate are the invocation of apocalyptic scenarios and scare tactics that are far outside the mainstream. TACD posted:The WSJ is well-known for posting outrageous denialist bullshit, and this article is no exception. Can you highlight anything in the article that is "denialist"? Michael Mann's response gave me a laugh. Of course he cites the Marcott graph, which featured the spike that the authors said wasn't statistically significant. At least he didn't do the readers the disservice of quoting one of his own lovely papers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I think the central thesis is that some scientists & politicians try to convey certainty/consensus towards catastrophe in the future when this is anything but certain. They take the consensus view that much of the warming in the 20th Century was due to humanity, and then stick the nonconsensus view that this will lead to [insert ridiculous prediction], and if you don't believe both well you're just an anti-science denier. Why are they doing this, in your opinion?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
unnoticed posted:Sorry to interrupt the current debate but someone posted this paper ( http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf ) on Facebook and while it does specifically say that temperatures are rising, it contradicts some other stuff I'd heard, so I wanted to know if it had been refuted in the last year. I can't seem to find many good articles about it as most of the links in google are deniers posting about how it shows all the models are wrong. Well whatever you heard was wrong, because that paper is definitely right. Temperatures have risen far slower than modeled forecasts. This is called the hiatus or pause, and there are lots of scholarly articles about it. It's one of the biggest mysteries in science to figure out why global temperatures have paused for so long. There have been many, many attempted explanations. The most recent paper, from a couple of months ago, speculates that the hiatus is caused by the Atlantic ocean and that temperatures could be in relative stasis for another decade: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897. That'd be nice. Torka posted:Why are they doing this, in your opinion? Because it dovetails with their politics! As Naomi Klein so succinctly put in her new book, "I have long been greatly concerned about the science of global warming – but I was propelled into a deeper engagement with it partly because I realized it could be a catalyst for forms of social and economic justice in which I already believed."
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Well whatever you heard was wrong, because that paper is definitely right. Temperatures have risen far slower than modeled forecasts. This is called the hiatus or pause, and there are lots of scholarly articles about it. It's one of the biggest mysteries in science to figure out why global temperatures have paused for so long. There have been many, many attempted explanations. Well I've seen other papers with nice graphs saying that the IPCC models have been fairly accurate over the last 20 years. Is that not the case?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Arkane posted:The Earth isn't going to heat up a few degrees C anytime in the next century, but even if we assume it does, we're still going to grow more than enough food. This is not true, yields for important crops like wheat are already facing moderately decreasing yields due to higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Of course, developed countries will be far less affected by the impacts of CC on agriculture than developing ones. Also, who cares how much food we are growing when most of this "food" is just to be used as an additive or to feed livestock.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
The article is right because it dovetails with Arkane's politics. Now Naomi Klein on the other hand, is wrong because
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
unnoticed posted:Well I've seen other papers with nice graphs saying that the IPCC models have been fairly accurate over the last 20 years. Is that not the case? Hard to know what graphs you are referring to without posting them. There could be context missing or it could be old data. But yeah, it is definitely not the case that models have matched observations. Here's my favorite graph of the numbers: http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/AR5-Trends-since-1990.png. Little daunting at first, but I think it illustrates the divergence the best. The Y-axis is temperature trend, and the rainbow of lines in the middle is the various trends from Jan 1990 to Dec 2013 from various governmental agencies like NASA and UK's Met Office. The bluish lavender bands are the various climate models, with the ones in bold being the mean of all of the models. The dots are the mid-points of the model, and the lines extend out to the 95% confidence intervals. Our observations are outside of the 95% confidence intervals of nearly every model and of the model mean, which would be a rejection of the null hypothesis that RCP4.5 models can forecast temperature changes. I believe the numbers are all available publicly through the KNMI Climate Explorer website, and I know for sure that the various governmental agencies publish the temperature trends monthly. So this can easily be replicated. Arkane fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Sep 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
I'm looking at this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-model-gw-projections-done-better-than-you-think.html Reading it a little closer, I suppose it doesn't really contradict anything because they do mention that warming has been slower than predicted. They say that it's within the projected range.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Arkane posted:The most recent paper, from a couple of months ago, speculates that the hiatus is caused by the Atlantic ocean and that temperatures could be in relative stasis for another decade: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897. That'd be nice. Except when it stops being nice. If the ability of the oceans (not just Atlantic) to act as a temperature sink has been underestimated, then a lot of other things follow from that, most of them very nasty in the form of extreme weather phenomena frequency. Another unsettling consequence is that if the mechanisms of heat retention in the oceans have not been understood correctly, meaning that the oceans currently are absorbing heat a lot faster than we thought possible, then their maximal buffer is going to be reached far sooner too. Which means that when it runs out, we're going to get extremely rapid warming.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Ooh, are we playing scientist dress up again? 'Cause nothing gets me going more than a bunch of people who aren't scientists discussing the technical errata of poo poo they hardly understand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:58 |
|
|
Radbot posted:Ooh, are we playing scientist dress up again? 'Cause nothing gets me going more than a bunch of people who aren't scientists discussing the technical errata of poo poo they hardly understand. Actually, I'm a scientist. Not a climate scientist though, biology.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:05
|
|